Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:17:34.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Law of Assignment: The Creation and Transfer of Choses in Action, by Marcus Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, lxxxv + 616 + (index) 20pp (£135 hardback). ISBN 978-0-19-928436-8.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Look Chan Ho
Look Chan Ho*
Affiliation:
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 315 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

19. Reviewed by L C Ho [2007] ICCLR 295.

20. It is rather surprising that Tolhurst's book is not mentioned again in the text.

21. [1902] 2 KB 427.

22. ‘It must not be allowed to escape notice that the subdivision of rights between in rem and in personam is not exhaustive, although, possibly, it might be said to be exhaustive of “rights realizable in court”. The category which is omitted is the category of rights which are good against all people but do not follow any res. All of these are superstructural rights which manifest themselves in the wrongs which infringe them. Thus the right to bodily integrity is protected through the torts which are committed against the body, and the right to reputation is protected by the torts of defamation. Such primary rights are “superstructural” in that they provide the superstructure over the wrong: every wrong is the infringement of a primary right. Not every primary right is a right in rem. A primary right can be in rem, in personam (say, from contract), or to give the residue a name, “purely superstructural”.’ P. Birks, English Private Law (Oxford University Press, 2000), xxxviii–xxxix.

23. Napier v Hunter[1993] AC 713.

24. Buchler v Talbot[2004] UKHL 9, [2004] 2 AC 298. See also L C Ho, ‘Goode's Swan Song to Corporate Insolvency Law’[2006] EBLR 1727.

25. C. Mitchell and S. Watterson, Subrogation: Law and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2007).

26. Napier v Hunter[1993] AC 713; Re Ballast[2006] EWHC 3189 (Ch). See also L C Ho, ‘Of proprietary restitution, insurers' subrogation and insolvency set-off – the untenable case of Re Ballast’ (2007) 23 IL&P 103.

27. [1998] Ch 170. See also L C Ho, ‘Whose claim is it? A critical assessment of the Re Oasis Merchandising Services orthodox’ (2007) 23 IL&P 70.

28. [1998] CLC 1382.

29. [2006] EWCA Civ 1079, [2006] 1 WLR 2926.

30. [2004] EWHC 1760 (Ch), [2005] 1 BCLC 1; [2006] EWCA Civ 7, [2006] 2 WLR 1369.

31. [2005] EWHC 2870 (Ch), [2006] 1 WLR 1728.

32. [2006] EWCA Civ 1533, [2007] BLR 76.

33. [2005] EWHC 2315 (TCC).

34. [2005] UKHL 41, [2005] 2 AC 680.

35. [2005] EWCA Civ 45.

36. [2003] EWHC 1653 (Ch), [2003] 2 BCLC 411.

37. [2006] EWCA Civ 14.